I've recently been challenged on my view that singletons are only good for logging and configuration. And with Dependency Injection I am now not seeing a reason why you can't use your services or repositories as singletons.
There is no coupling because DI injects a singleton instance through an interface. The only reasonable argument is that your services might have shared state, but if you think about it, services should be stand alone units without any shared state. Yes they do get injected with the repositories but you only have one way that a repository instance is created and passed to the service. Since repositories should never have a shared state I don't see any reasons why it also cannot be a singleton.
So for example a simple service class would look like this:
public class GraphicService : IGraphicService
{
private IGraphicRepository _rep;
public GraphicService(IGraphicRepository rep)
{
_rep = rep;
}
public void CreateGraphic()
{
...
_rep.SaveGraphic(graphic):
}
}
No state is shared in service except repository which also doesn't change or have it's own state.
So the question is, if your services and repositories don't have any state and only passed in, through interface, configuration or anything else that's instantiated the same way they then why wouldn't you have them as singleton?
If you're using the Singleton pattern i.e a static property of a class, then you have the tightly coupling problem.
If you need just a single instance of a class and you're using a DI Container to control its lifetime, then it's not a problem as there are none of the drawbacks. The app doesn't know there is a singleton in place, only the DI Container knows about it.
Bottom line, a single instance of a class is a valid coding requirement, the only issue is how you implement it. The Di Container is the best approach. the Singleton pattern is for quick'n dirty apps where you don't care enough about maintainability and testing.
Some projects use singleton for dependence lookup before dependency injection gets populated. for example iBATIS jpetstore if I'm not mistaken. It's convenient that you can access your dependence gloablly like
public class GraphicService : IGraphicService
{
private IGraphicRepository _rep = GraphicRepository.getInstance();
public void CreateGraphic()
{
...
_rep.SaveGraphic(graphic):
}
}
But this harms testability (for not easy to replace dependence with test doubles) and introduces implicit strong dependence (IGraphicService depends on both the abstraction and the implementation).
Dependeny injection sovles these. I don't see why can't use singleton in your case, but it doesn't add much value when using DI.
Related
I am new to dependency injection pattern. I love the idea, but struggle to apply it to my case. I have a singleton object, let’s call it X, which I need often in many parts of my program, in many different classes, sometimes deep in the call stack. Usually I would implement this as a globally available singleton. How is this implemented within the DI pattern, specifically with .NET Core DI container? I understand I need to register X with the DI container as a singleton, but how then I get access to it? DI will instantiate classes with constructors which will take reference to X, that’s great – but I need X deep within the call hierarchy, within my own objects which .NET Core or DI container know nothing about, in objects that were created using new rather than instantiated by the DI container.
I guess my question is – how does global singleton pattern aligns/implemented by/replaced by/avoided with the DI pattern?
Well, "new is glue" (Link). That means if you have new'ed an instance, it is glued to your implementation. You cannot easily exchange it with a different implementation, for example a mock for testing. Like gluing together Lego bricks.
I you want to use proper dependency injection (using a container/framework or not) you need to structure your program in a way that you don't glue your components together, but instead inject them.
Every class is basically at hierarchy level 1 then. You need an instance of your logger? You inject it. You need an instance of a class that needs a logger? You inject it. You want to test your logging mechanism? Easy, you just inject something that conforms to your logger interface that logs into a list and the at the end of your test you can check your list and see if all the required logs are there. That is something you can automate (in contrast to using your normal logging mechanism and checking the logfiles by hand).
That means in the end, you don't really have a hierarchy, because every class you have just gets their dependencies injected and it will be the container/framework or your controlling code that determines what that means for the order of instantiation of objects.
As far as design patterns go, allow me an observation: even now, you don't need a singleton. Right now in your program, it would work if you had a plain global variable. But I guess you read that global variables are "bad". And design patterns are "good". And since you need a global variable and singleton delivers a global variable, why use the "bad", when you can use the "good" right? Well, the problem is, even with a singleton, the global variable is bad. It's a drawback of the pattern, a toad you have to swallow for the singleton logic to work. In your case, you don't need the singleton logic, but you like the taste of toads. So you created a singleton. Don't do that with design patterns. Read them very carefully and make sure you use them for the intended purpose, not because you like their side-effects or because it feels good to use a design pattern.
Just an idea and maybe I need your thought:
public static class DependencyResolver
{
public static Func<IServiceProvider> GetServiceProvider;
}
Then in Startup:
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
DependencyResolver.GetServiceProvider = () => { return serviceProvider; };
}
And now in any deed class:
DependencyResolver.GetServiceProvider().GetService<IService>();
Here's a simplified example of how this would work without a singleton.
This example assumes that your project is built in the following way:
the entry point is main
main creates an instance of class GuiCreator, then calls the method createAndRunGUI()
everything else is handled by that method
So your simplified code looks like this:
// main
// ... (boilerplate)
container = new Container();
gui = new GuiCreator(container.getDatabase(), container.getLogger(), container.getOtherDependency());
gui.createAndRunGUI();
// ... (boilerplate)
// GuiCreator
public class GuiCreator {
private IDatabase db;
private ILogger log;
private IOtherDependency other;
public GuiCreator(IDatabase newdb, ILogger newlog, IOtherDependency newother) {
db = newdb;
log = newlog;
other = newother;
}
public void createAndRunGUI() {
// do stuff
}
}
The Container class is where you actually define which implementations will be used, while the GuiCreator contructor takes interfaces as arguments. Now let's say the implementation of ILogger you choose has itself a dependency, defined by an interface its contructor takes as argument. The Container knows this and resolves it accordingly by instantiating the Logger as new LoggerImplementation(getLoggerDependency());. This goes on for the entire dependency chain.
So in essence:
All classes keep instances of interfaces they depend upon as members.
These members are set in the respective constructor.
The entire dependency chain is thus resolved when the first object is instantiated. Note that there might/should be some lazy loading involved here.
The only places where the container's methods are accessed to create instances are in main and inside the container itself:
Any class used in main receives its dependencies from main's container instance.
Any class not used in main, but rather used only as a dependency, is instantiated by the container and receives its dependencies from within there.
Any class used neither in main nor indirectly as a dependency somewhere below the classes used in main will obviously never be instantiated.
Thus, no class actually needs a reference to the container. In fact, no class needs to know there even is a container in your project. All they know is which interfaces they personally need.
The Container can either be provided by some third party library/framework or you can code it yourself. Typically, it will use some configuration file to determine which implementations are actually supposed to be used for the various interfaces. Third party containers will usually perform some sort of code analysis supported by annotations to "autowire" implementations, so if you go with a ready-made tool, make sure you read up on how that part works because it will generally make your life easier down the road.
I'm having troubles getting the advantage of a IoC (DI) container like Ninject, Unity or whatever. I understand the concepts as follows:
DI: Injecting a dependency into the class that requires it (preferably via constructor injection). I totally see why the less tight coupling is a good thing.
public MyClass{
ISomeService svc;
public MyClass(ISomeService svc){
svc = svc;
}
public doSomething(){
svc.doSomething();
}
}
Service Locator: When a "container" is used directly inside the class that requires a dependancy, to resolve the dependancy. I do get the point that this generates another dependancy and I also see that basically nothing is getting injected.
public MyClass{
public MyClass(){}
public doSomething(){
ServiceLocator.resolve<ISomeService>().doSomething();
}
}
Now, what confuses me is the concept of a "DI container". To me, it looks exactly like a service locator which - as far as I read - should only be used in the entry point / startup method of an application to register and resolve the dependancies and inject them into the constructors of other classes - and not within a concrete class that needs the dependancy (probably for the same reason why Service locators are considered "bad")
What is the purpose of using the container when I could just create the dependancy and pass it to the constructor?
public void main(){
DIContainer.register<ISomeService>(new SomeService());
// ...
var myclass = new MyClass(DIContainer.resolve<ISomeService>());
myclass.doSomething();
}
Does it really make sense to pass all the dependancies to all classes in the application initialization method? There might be 100 dependancies which will be eventually needed (or not) and just because it's considered a good practice you set create them in the init method?
What is the purpose of using the container when I could just create the dependancy and pass it to the constructor?
DI containers are supposed to help you create an object graph quickly. You just tell it which concrete implementations you want to use for which abstractions (the registration phase), and then it can create any objects you want want (resolve phase).
If you create the dependencies and pass them to the constructor (in the application initialization code), then you are actually doing Pure DI.
I would argue that Pure DI is a better approach in many cases. See my article here
Does it really make sense to pass all the dependancies to all classes in the application initialization method? There might be 100 dependancies which will be eventually needed (or not) and just because it's considered a good practice you set create them in the init method?
I would say yes. You should create the object graph when your application starts up. This is called the composition root.
If you need to create objects after your application has started then you should use factories (mainly abstract factories). And such factories will be created with the other objects in the composition roots.
Your classes shouldn't do much in the constructor, this will make the cost of creating all the dependencies at the composition root low.
However, I would say that it is OK to create some types of objects using the new keyword in special cases. Like when the object is a simple Data Transfer Object (DTO)
Over time controllers develop a lot of dependencies, and creating an instance of controller becomes too expensive for each request (especially with DI). Is there any solution to make controllers singletons?
Creating instances of controllers is pretty fast and simple operation. What becomes too expensive is creating dependencies for each request. So, what you really need is many controllers which share same instances of dependencies.
E.g. you have following controller
public class SalesController : Controller
{
private IProductRepository productRepository;
private IOrderRepository orderRepository;
public SalesController(IProductRepository productRepository,
IOrderRepository orderRepository)
{
this.productRepository = productRepository;
this.orderRepository = orderRepository;
}
// ...
}
You should configure your dependency injection framework to use same instances of repositories for all application (keep in mind, you can have synchronization problems). Now creating dependencies is not expensive any more. All dependencies are instantiated only once, and reused for all requests.
If you have many dependencies and you are worrying about costs of getting reference to instance of each dependency and providing these references to controller instance (which I don't think will be very expensive), then you can group your dependencies (something like Introduce Parameter Object refactoring):
public class SalesController : Controller
{
private ISalesService salesService;
public SalesController(ISalesService salesService)
{
this.salesService = salesService;
}
// ...
}
public class SalesService : ISalesService
{
private IProductRepository productRepository;
private IOrderRepository orderRepository;
public SalesService(IProductRepository productRepository,
IOrderRepository orderRepository)
{
this.productRepository = productRepository;
this.orderRepository = orderRepository;
}
// ...
}
Now you have single dependency, which will be injected very quickly. If you will configure your dependency injection framework to use singleton SalesService, then all SalesControllers will reuse same instance of service. Creation of controllers and providing dependencies will be very fast.
So first an answer to the original question:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) {
// put other services bindings here
// bind all Controller classes as singletons
services.AddSingleton<HomeController, HomeController>();
// tell framework to obtain Controller instances from ServiceProvider.
services.AddMvc().AddControllersAsServices();
}
As stated in the original question, if controllers have big dependency trees consisting mainly of request Scoped or Transient dependencies then creating them separately for each request may have some footprint on scalability of your application (in Java for example Servlet instances are singletons by default exactly for this reason). While usually CPU and real time needed to create even a big dependency tree is negligible (unless you have some heavy computations or network communication in constructors of your components, which almost never is a good idea for transient or request scoped components), the memory usage footprint is something to reckon with. In case of common DB-Web apps memory is the main factor limiting number of concurrent requests that a single machine-node can handle. If every request has a separate copy of a big dependency tree, together they may consume a significant amount of memory (the other thing to watch for is initial stack size for a new thread, by the way).
The accepted answer 1220560 solves the problem as well, but I would consider it an ugly hack and it has some drawbacks: you need to create this artificial singleton service that will be used by your Controllers either as a service locator or a proxy for other services. If you have just one such singleton object for all your controllers then you are effectively hiding real dependencies of your Controller: for example if someone wants to write a unit-test for your Controller he needs to analyse carefully its implementation to see which dependencies it actually uses, so that he knows what mocks/fakes he needs to provide in his test setup. If later you change your Controller and as a result of your change the subset of services your controller uses changes as well, it is very easy to forget to update the test setup also. This may sometimes lead to bugs that are hard to track. Contrary to this, if your dependencies are declared explicitly as constructor params, you will get a compiler error in the test setup right away. Another thing you can do is to have a separate such a singleton proxy/service locator for each controller, but then it's a lot of hassle basically.
Regardless whether you use the solution proposed by me or the one from answer #1220560 you must be careful when injecting request Scoped dependencies into singleton objects as described in https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/dependency-injection#registering-your-own-services right at the end of the "registering-your-own-services" section. You can find possible solutions to this problem here: how to use scoped dependency in a singleton in C# / ASP
Another thing to watch for is concurrency issue: singleton objects may be accessed concurrently by several threads handling different concurrent requests, so make sure to add proper synchronization to any non-thread-safe resources your singleton uses.
edit:
I've just realized the original question was about ASP.NET and this answer is for ASP.NET Core, so it probably won't work for "non-Core".
What bothers me about IoC and autowiring is the usability of IoC for objects that are created.
Lets say I have the a static Utils class, that is used across the system. When I decided to use IoC and DI, I easily changed Utils to be non-static and have all my components receive its instance.
However, auto-wiring works well only for components that are created during bootstrap, for objects that are created during run-time or as response of user operations, and that use Utils, auto-wiring doesn't work. Instead, I have to manually pass instance of Utils to every instance of every object that is created during runtime.
The only way around it that I can see is using the anti-pattern of passing the IoC container around, which I certainly wouldn't want to do.
Is there another way? Or am I forced to pass Utils manually around to every instance and class?
Note: This isn't a question of design. Sure, I could minimize the usage of this metaphorical Utils in various ways, but in many situations it is unavoidable.
The only way around it that I can see is using the anti-pattern of
passing the IoC container around, which I certainly wouldn't want to
do.
The answer is simply: use an abstract factory.
By defining the factory interface in the application and the factory implementation in the Composition Root (your bootstrapper code) you can prevent using the Service Locator anti-pattern. This factory implementation can hold a reference to the container and call it to request instances. Because that implementation is part of your bootstrapping logic, that implementation is a infrastructure component, and you are not using it as a service locator.
Example:
public interface IUnitOfWorkFactory
{
IUnitOfWork CreateNew();
}
Implementation in composition root:
internal class SimpleInjectorUnitOfWorkFactory
: IUnitOfWorkFactory
{
private readonly SimpleInjector.Container container;
public SimpleInjectorUnitOfWorkFactory(Container container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public IUnitOfWork CreateNew()
{
return this.container.GetInstance<IUnitOfWork>();
}
}
On this AutoFac "Best Practices" page (http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/BestPractices), they say:
Don't Pass the Container Around
Giving components access to the container, or storing it in a public static property, or making functions like Resolve() available on a global 'IoC' class defeats the purpose of using dependency injection. Such designs have more in common with the Service Locator pattern.
If components have a dependency on the container, look at how they're using the container to retrieve services, and add those services to the component's (dependency injected) constructor arguments instead.
So what would be a better way to have one component "dynamically" instantiate another? Their second paragraph doesn't cover the case where the component that "may" need to be created will depend on the state of the system. Or when component A needs to create X number of component B.
To abstract away the instantiation of another component, you can use the Factory pattern:
public interface IComponentBFactory
{
IComponentB CreateComponentB();
}
public class ComponentA : IComponentA
{
private IComponentBFactory _componentBFactory;
public ComponentA(IComponentBFactory componentBFactory)
{
_componentBFactory = componentBFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var componentB = _componentBFactory.CreateComponentB();
...
}
}
Then the implementation can be registered with the IoC container.
A container is one way of assembling an object graph, but it certainly isn't the only way. It is an implementation detail. Keeping the objects free of this knowledge decouples them from infrastructure concerns. It also keeps them from having to know which version of a dependency to resolve.
Autofac actually has some special functionality for exactly this scenario - the details are on the wiki here: http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/DelegateFactories.
In essence, if A needs to create multiple instances of B, A can take a dependency on Func<B> and Autofac will generate an implementation that returns new Bs out of the container.
The other suggestions above are of course valid - Autofac's approach has a couple of differences:
It avoids the need for a large number of factory interfaces
B (the product of the factory) can still have dependencies injected by the container
Hope this helps!
Nick
An IoC takes the responsibility for determining which version of a dependency a given object should use. This is useful for doing things like creating chains of objects that implement an interface as well as having a dependency on that interface (similar to a chain of command or decorator pattern).
By passing your container, you are putting the onus on the individual object to get the appropriate dependency, so it has to know how to. With typical IoC usage, the object only needs to declare that it has a dependency, not think about selecting between multiple available implementations of that dependency.
Service Locator patterns are more difficult to test and it certainly is more difficult to control dependencies, which may lead to more coupling in your system than you really want.
If you really want something like lazy instantiation you may still opt for the Service Locator style (it doesn't kill you straight away and if you stick to the container's interface it is not too hard to test with some mocking framework). Bear in mind, though that the instantiation of a class that doesn't do much (or anything) in the constructor is immensely cheap.
The container's I have come to know (not autofac so far) will let you modify what dependencies should be injected into which instance depending on the state of the system such that even those decisions can be externalized into the configuration of the container.
This can provide you plenty of flexibility without resorting to implementing interaction with the container based on some state you access in the instance consuming dependencies.